Search

Aims: To predict the optimal chemoprophylactic dose of mefloquine in infants of 5–10 kg using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) and clinical effectiveness models. Methods: The PBPK model was developed in Simcyp version 14.1 and verified against clinical pharmacokinetic data in adults; the final model, accounting for developmental physiology and enzyme ontogeny was then applied in the paediatric population. The clinical effectiveness model utilized real‐world chemoprophylaxis data with stratification of output by age and including infant data from the UK population. Results: PBPK simulations in infant populations depend on the assumed fraction of mefloquine metabolized by CYP3A4 (0.47, 0.95) and on the associated CYP3A4 ontogeny (Salem, Upreti). However, all scenarios suggest that a dose of 62.5 mg weekly achieves or exceeds the exposure in adults following a 250 mg weekly dose and results in a minimum plasma concentration of 620 ng ml–1, which is considered necessary to achieve 95% prophylactic efficacy. The clinical effectiveness model predicts a 96% protective efficacy from mefloquine chemoprophylaxis at 62.5 mg weekly. Conclusions: The PBPK and clinical effectiveness models are mutually supportive and suggest a prophylactic dose of 62.5 mg weekly in the Caucasian 5–10 kg infant population travelling to endemic countries. This dual approach offers a novel route to dose selection in a vulnerable population, where clinical trials would be difficult to conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Risdiplam (RG7916, RO7034067) is an orally administered, centrally and peripherally distributed, survival of motor neuron 2 (SMN2) mRNA splicing modifier for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). The objectives of this entry‐into‐human study were to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics of risdiplam, and the effect of the strong CYP3A inhibitor itraconazole on the PK of risdiplam in healthy male volunteers. Methods: Part 1 had a randomized, double‐blind, adaptive design with 25 subjects receiving single ascending oral doses of risdiplam (ranging from 0.6–18.0 mg, n = 18) or placebo (n = 7). A Bayesian framework was applied to estimate risdiplam's effect on SMN2 mRNA. The effect of multiple doses of itraconazole on the PK of risdiplam was also assessed using a two‐period cross‐over design (n = 8). Results: Risdiplam in the fasted or fed state was well tolerated. Risdiplam exhibited linear PK over the dose range with a multi‐phasic decline with a mean terminal half‐life of 40–69 h. Food had no relevant effect, and itraconazole had only a minor effect on plasma PK indicating a low fraction of risdiplam metabolized by CYP3A. The highest tested dose of 18.0 mg risdiplam led to approximately 41% (95% confidence interval 27–55%) of the estimated maximum increase in SMN2 mRNA. Conclusions: Risdiplam was well tolerated and proof of mechanism was demonstrated by the intended shift in SMN2 splicing towards full‐length SMN2 mRNA. Based on these data, Phase 2/3 studies of risdiplam in patients with SMA are now ongoing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alectinib is approved and recommended as the preferred first‐line treatment for patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)‐positive non–small cell lung cancer. The effect of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of alectinib was assessed with physiologically based PK modeling prospectively and in a clinical study. An open‐label study (NCT02621047) investigated a single 300‐mg dose of alectinib in moderate (n = 8) and severe (n = 8) hepatic impairment (Child‐Pugh B/C), and healthy subjects (n = 12) matched for age, sex, and body weight. Physiologically based PK modeling was conducted prospectively to inform the clinical study design and support the use of a lower dose and extended PK sampling in the study. PK parameters were calculated for alectinib, its major similarly active metabolite, M4, and the combined exposure of alectinib and M4. Unbound concentrations were assessed at 6 and 12 hours postdose. Administration of alectinib to subjects with hepatic impairment increased the area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time 0 to infinity of the combined exposure of alectinib and M4 to 136% (90% confidence interval [CI], 94.7‐196) and 176% (90%CI 98.4‐315), for moderate and severe hepatic impairment, respectively, relative to matched healthy subjects. Unbound concentrations for alectinib and M4 did not appear substantially different between hepatic‐impaired and healthy subjects. Moderate hepatic impairment had only a modest, not clinically significant effect on alectinib exposure, while the higher exposure observed in severe hepatic impairment supports a dose adjustment in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alectinib is a selective anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of ALK‐positive non‐small cell lung cancer. Alectinib and its major active metabolite M4 exhibited drug–drug interaction (DDI) potential through cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP2C8 in vitro. Clinical relevance of the DDI risk was investigated as part of a rapid development program to fulfill the breakthrough therapy designation. Therefore, a strategy with a combination of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and limited clinical trials focused on generating informative data for modeling was made to ensure extrapolation ability of DDI risk. The PBPK modeling has provided mechanistic insight into the low victim DDI risk of alectinib through CYP3A4 by a novel two‐dimensional analysis for fmCYP3A4 and FG, and demonstrated negligible CYPs 2C8 and 3A4 enzyme‐modulating effects at clinically relevant exposure. This work supports that alectinib can be prescribed without dose adjustment for CYP‐mediated DDI liabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This work provides a perspective on the qualification and verification of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) platforms/models intended for regulatory submission based on the collective experience of the Simcyp Consortium members. Examples of regulatory submission of PBPK analyses across various intended applications are presented and discussed. European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recent draft guidelines regarding PBPK analyses and reporting are encouraging, and to advance the use and acceptability of PBPK analyses, more clarity and flexibility are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]